There are really weird statements, and then there are just plain bizarre statements. Just when you think you’ve heard it all emanating from President Obama and his administration, you get hit with something even more disconcerting.
As reported by CNN:
President Barack Obama says the United States’ credibility — beyond just the specifics of the negotiations and his tenure in the White House — is on the line as Congress votes on the Iran nuclear deal.
In an interview aired Sunday on CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS,” Obama said the United States’ role in global politics could be affected by the deal.
“Does the rest of the world take seriously the United States’ ability to craft international agendas, to reach international agreements and to deliver on them in ways that garner the respect and the adherence from other countries?” he said.
Asked whether military force against Iran might be necessary if the deal collapses, Obama said: “I have a general policy on big issues like this not to anticipate failure. And I’m not going to anticipate failure now because I think we have the better argument.”
First of all, the United States’ credibility has been damaged going back at least to President Obama’s Syrian “red line” assertion, referring to the use of chemical weapons. This negotiation serves only to lessen the already tarnished reputation of our country. We’ve seen the incredible amount of disrespect toward the Obama administration from Russian President Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jingping. Even the chubby little fella with the bad haircut in North Korea has exhibited disdain toward our nation. Matter of fact, we just saw two South Korean soldiers maimed by mines emplaced by the North Koreans in the vicinity of the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ).
President Obama made a statement I found extremely perplexing regarding this foreign policy endeavor. We went into negotiations with Iran with the intent to end Iranian pursuit of a nuclear capability. Now President Obama claims if we simply delay that by 15 years, that’s a good thing.
What? So the President of the United States sees postponing an inevitability as a positive. And furthermore, in the interim, we’re allowing Iran to become a greater economic and military power. Actually, how will the United States even know the status of any nuclear inspections, since we’re forbidden from being on any inspection team?
President Obama also made a statement referencing Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu’s unprecedented interference in U.S. affairs. The Times of Israel reported:
President Barack Obama said Israeli interference in internal US affairs ahead of a Congressional vote on the Iranian nuclear deal was unprecedented.
In an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, an excerpt of which was published [last] Saturday ahead of the full interview [last] Sunday, Obama was asked if he thought it was “appropriate of a foreign head of government to inject himself into an American affair.
The president responded that he would let Zakaria “ask Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu that question if he gives you an interview,” before adding: “I don’t recall a similar example.”
In another excerpt, Obama said Netanyahu is flat wrong in asserting the deal won’t thwart Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. “On the substance, the prime minister is wrong on this,” said Obama. “I can show that the basic assumptions he’s made on this are incorrect.” In fact, said the president, the deal is “very good for Israel.”
A good deal for Israel?
So let me put this into simple language. President Obama thinks it’s good for Israel that Iran, the number one state sponsor of Islamic terrorism — namely, Hezbollah and Hamas — is about to get billions of dollars in unfrozen assets and open up new markets, including oil markets. President Obama thinks it’s just swell for Israel that Iran’s negotiating with Russia and China for aerial refueling tankers and fighter jets. President Obama believes it’s just awesome for Israel that Iran chants, “Death to Israel.”
And then Obama accuses Israel of unprecedented “interference” in his affairs? You can’t make this stuff up. Heck yeah, I’d be interfering as well if someone was placing my nation in harm’s way.
Perhaps the leaders of Czechoslovakia and Poland should’ve been more vociferous with the western powers of England and France as they stood back and watched the rise of Nazi Germany. Maybe the nations of the Pacific rim, such as China and Korea, should’ve been more interfering as they watched the growth of Japanese imperialism.
I think Prime Minister Netanyahu is a far more astute citizen of history than President Obama. It appears to me, and I’m sure some of you as well, Barack Obama is hell bent on having his way and damn y’all who oppose him. There’s no viable explanation for this Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran. There’s no argument to be made, unless it’s one based on lies and deceit — as we saw last week during President Obama’s American University speech. If this were such a vital agreement, why the vitriolic manner exhibited by Obama and his allies? To compare those opposing this agreement on principle and merit to Iran’s hardline militant Islamic theocrats is unconscionable.
The false narrative about the only other alternative is war evidences a dire fear-mongering tactic — and displays to the enemy a lack of will, resolve and courage.
The United States’ credibility became questionable in November 2008 with the election of Barack Obama. Our credibility on the global stage was lost with Obama’s reelection in November 2012. And ever since that day we’ve seen the despots, dictators, theocrats and autocrats of the world — including the global Islamic jihad — make unprecedented gains. And we still have some eighteen months to go.